|
|
|---|
|
American Politics Journal Atrios Barry Crimmins Betty Bowers Buzzflash Consortium News Daily Howler Daily Kos Democatic Underground Disinfotainment Today Evil GOP Bastards Faux News Channel Greg Palast The Hollywood Liberal Internet Weekly Jesus General Joe Conason Josh Marshall Liberal Oasis Make Them Accountable Mark Morford Mike Malloy Political Humor - About.com Political Wire Randi Rhodes Rude Pundit Smirking Chimp Take Back the Media Whitehouse.org More Links |
Normally, I enjoy your site. Your commentary is often spot-on, and the site as a whole
serves as my touchstone for stories that I'm not going to hear much about in the MSM, but that deserve my attention.
But presenting the photos you did as "evidence" for a possible "demolition" of the WTC is really irresponsible.
I've spent a lot of time researching the various 9/11 conspiracy "theories" and they are all wholly without substance, and rely, as your presentation of these photos does, on the ignorance of their audience and crass appeals to so-called "common-sense."
What you've done is present pictures with an un-scientific, "doesn't it look like..." interpretation that many might take as reasonable and compelling. Hell, 5 years ago, I would have. But once you ask the evidence to satisfy actual informed analysis, it fails to stand up as "evidence" any more.
Let me make this clear - I'm not saying this is the same a proof positive for the extant explanation of the events of 9/11, I'm just saying it's not actually compelling evidence for explosive demolition.
Simply, there are two ready and obvious explanations for the images in question:
Image one: the "explosions" "below" the "burning floors"
1. as the floors above crushed the floors below, the air had to go somewhere. It should come as no surprise that it blasted out through shttering windows.
2. the claim that this happened "below" the "burning floors" is misleading, since it is entirely possible that fires had spread to lower floor after firefighters began evacuating the floors in question.
this whole characterization is misleading at best, and ought to be beneath you.
Image two: "new" explosions "below the level of breaking"
1. this is really awful. there is no way to tell from this photo where the "level" of breaking is. It is a wholly dishonest appeal to the emotional reaction the photo engenders - you essentially assert that the "breaking" is restricted to the dramatic upper portion of the photo, and conclude that therefore there is no "breaking" in the lower portion. This is patently absurd. Flaming debris was raining down through the interior of the tower as it collapsed since the structural integrity was predominantly contained in the exterior walls and the inner core. Simple reason constructs a more plausible explanation for the effects we see, and one that coincides with the overhwlming majority of scientific opinion.
Image three: "new explosions" shortly below the dust cloud
1. I notice here you don't make any comment about the falling debris on the right that is below even these supposed explosion.
2. Such debris would be breaking windows all the way down the tower, well before the main collapse crushed them (this photo, BTW, demonstrates clearly that the "free-fall" conspiracists - those that claim the tower fell @ freefall velocity in definiance of the "laws of physics" - are wrong) once such holes were made, debris clouds, behaving as all normal fluids do, would shoot out in just the manner depicted.
I'm wondering what, if any, research you did to determing the credibility of the site you link to. PLease feel free to forward any links that support the credentials you've presented for this site, because I don't read Finnish, and can't figure out a good way to verify the site's claim without being able to do so.
Without such verification, this particular presentation on your site is absolutley equivalent to a FOX news "report" on WMD in Iraq.
I expected better from your site.